Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election

Theology
1

. The doctrine of election has a strong tendency to make a church rigorous about the truth and about the Scriptures, and so keep it from drifting into doctrinal indifference and conformity to culture.
The doctrine of election tends to give firmness and fiber to flabby minds. It tends to produce robust, thoughtful Christians who are not swept away by trendy, man-centered ideas. It has an amazing preservative power that works to keep other doctrines from being diluted and lost. In general it tends to press onto our minds a God-centered worldview built out of real objective truth.

Here is one illustration of why that matters. In the most recent issue of Christianity Today Chuck Colson discusses “postmodernism” —“the philosophy that claims there is no transcendent truth.” He gives four or five signs from the culture that postmodernism is losing strength and may be soon passĂ©. But then listen to the call he makes to the churches.

I can’t think of a more critical time for pastors, scholars, and lay people to be grounded in a biblical worldview and to defend it clearly to those hungering for truth.

But are we prepared for such a challenge? George Barna recently completed a tour of American churches and came back with a dismaying report that most church and lay leaders—90 percent, according to one survey— have no understanding worldview. How are we going to contend with competing philosophies if we’re not even rooted in our own truth system?

Ironically just as there seem to be encouraging signs in the culture, there are also signs that the church is dumbing down, moving from a Word-driven message to an image- and emotion-driven message (note how many Christian radio stations have recently converted from talk and preaching to all music).

It would be the supreme irony—and a terrible tragedy—if we found ourselves slipping into postmodernity just when the broader culture has figured out it’s a dead end. (“The Postmodern Crackup,” in Christianity Today, December, 2003, Vol. 47, No. 12, p. 72).

The doctrine of election an amazing effect to awaken people who are drifting in the river of inherited assumptions with no engagement of the mind. Suddenly they are jarred by the radical God-centeredness of the Bible and the frightening man-centeredness of their own hearts. They are put on a quest to build a way of thinking Biblically about the God and the world that may avoid the tragedy Colson warns about: namely, the world discovering, at last, that truth really matters, just when the church has decided in the name of cultural relevance that doctrine doesn’t matter. The doctrine of election is good for us and for our grandchildren in ways we can’t even yet imagine.

  1. A third pastoral thought about the doctrine of election is that it is one of the best ways to test whether we have reversed roles with God.
    This is a timeless problem, but especially in the modern world that assumes human autonomy and questions all authority and takes the judgment seat to decide if God even exists.

Paul addressed this issue most forcefully in Romans 9:6-23. As he did, he heard the ancient and modern objection, “Why does [God] still find fault? For who can resist his will?” his answer to that was, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:19-20). In other words, it’s not fitting for you to reverse roles with God. He’s the potter. Few doctrines test more clearly whether we are judging God or God is judging us.

When the book of Job is finished and all Job’s defenses are spent, and all the misleading counsel of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar has faded away, the sum of the matter is this: “Then Job answered the LORD and said: 2 'I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. . . . I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” God responds, “Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.” In other words, Take your proper place, Job, and listen to me. Learn from me; don’t teach me. Trust me; don’t accuse me. To which Job says finally, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:1-6). The doctrine of election puts us to the test as few others to see if we are in the shoes of the Job who accuses, or the broken and contrite Job who trusts.

It is hard for a fish to know that it is wet. Wet is all there is for a fish. A fish doesn’t even think of it. So it’s hard for a modern person —a person living in the last two hundred years—to know that he is arrogant toward God. Arrogance toward God is all there is in the modern world. It’s the ocean we swim in—the air we breathe. It’s woven into the fabric of our minds. We don’t even know it’s there. We can’t see it, because we look through it to see everything else.

Here’s the way C. S. Lewis put it:

The ancient man approached God . . . as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the Bench and God in the Dock. (“God in the Dock,” in Lesley Walmsley, ed., C.S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces [London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000], p. 36)
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/pastoral-thoughts-on-the-doctrine-of-election#:~:text=Pastoral%20Thoughts%20on%20the%20Doctrine%20of Election

True or not?

J.

2

Now I understand what we are talking about. This, according to Got Answers. “The Bible teaches that God chooses people based on His own purposes and His desire to show grace to undeserving sinners. Ephesians 1:4–6 says, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.” He chose in love, in accordance with His pleasure and will, so that He would be glorified. God’s election has nothing to do with what the elect would or would not do.

God did not choose everyone. If He had, then everyone would come to faith in Christ. He chose some, and He left others to their own desires. Left to ourselves, all of us would continue in our rebellion and reject Christ. God chose to pursue some, convict them of their need, and lead them to faith. It is because of God’s choice that anyone comes to faith in Christ. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:44).

For those who may not know, what is the Doctrine of Election? The term comes from the Greek word eklegomai, which means “to pick out” or “to choose.” In a theological context, it generally falls into three main interpretations: Calvinism - says the belief that before the foundation of the world, God chose certain individuals for salvation based solely on His sovereign will, not on any foreseen merit or faith in the person.

Arminianism - says the belief that God chooses those whom He foreknows will freely choose to have faith in Jesus Christ. In this view, “election” is conditioned on the human response.

Then you have the Corporate Election, which says that God elects a group (like the Nation of Israel or the Church “in Christ”), and individuals participate in that election by being part of that group.

Is it Biblical? The word “elect” and the concept of God choosing people appear frequently in the Bible. The debate isn’t usually over if an election exists, but how it works, Ephesians 1:4-5

“Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love, he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,”

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” Romans 9:16.

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” John 15-16

Now I have found critics of unconditional election argue that it contradicts the Biblical themes of human responsibility and God’s universal love.

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9

1 Timothy 2:4, Romans 8:29 ETC. If you are asking me where I stand, I would have to go with God choosing those whom He foreknows will freely choose to have faith in Jesus Christ. Why would God waste time? Since God is outside of time, He is in the past, present, and future; He already knows what we will choose. So it is still free will on our part; God just knows what that choice will be. I do not think God gets surprised often.

Peter

Is Jesus God Himself or One Person Within God?
3

Conditioned on human response?

The principal text is found in ~Ephesians 2:1–5, where the apostle explicitly describes the former condition of believers before the saving intervention of God.

~Ephesians 2:1–5

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins[1]]

The lexical force of the term “dead” (Greek ΜΔÎșÏÎżÏÏ‚, nekrous) denotes a condition of incapacity and separation rather than physical cessation of existence. In Pauline anthropology the unregenerate person is not morally neutral or merely weakened but spiritually incapable of responding rightly to God apart from divine initiative. The verb translated “quickened” (ÏƒÏ…ÎœÎ”Î¶Ï‰ÎżÏ€ÎżÎŻÎ·ÏƒÎ”Îœ, synezƍopoiēsen) describes the act of being made alive together with Christ, directly tying regeneration to the resurrection life of Christ following His atoning death on the cross.

Paul repeats the same formulation to intensify the argument:

~Colossians 2:13

And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses[2]]

Here again the participle ᜄΜτας ΜΔÎșÏÎżÏÏ‚ (“being dead”) describes the prior state of alienation before the believer is united with Christ. The quickening occurs “together with him,” meaning the believer’s new life is inseparably connected to Christ’s resurrection after His crucifixion, so that the cross secures forgiveness and the resurrection manifests the new life granted to those united to Him.

A closely related passage further describes this inability in terms of moral incapacity:

~Romans 8:7–8

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God[3]]

The phrase “cannot please God” expresses inability, not merely unwillingness. This corresponds with the description of spiritual death in Ephesians, showing that fallen humanity is incapable of responding rightly to God apart from divine regeneration.

You have scripture references? Since we were dead
pause and calmly think about this, with no free will.

While I do agree with your scripture quotations, how free is free will? And what is free will apart from YHWH? Man left in his natural state, with free will, will never seek after Christ Jesus.

J.

  1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath even as others But God who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith he loved us Even when we were dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ by grace ye are saved - KJV ↩

  2. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses - KJV ↩

  3. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God - KJV ↩

1 Like
4

THIS Is What NeedGod.net Thinks About Calvinism & Free Will!

This is going to make NO sense unless you are listening to the podcast.

J.

5

I agree. Let me try this.

“For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

The first three steps are part of everyone’s life.

Foreknowledge- God foreknows you before you are even conceived.
Predestination - God sets up a plan and a purpose for you and your life.
Calling - God calls you out of the world and to Himself.

That is where you come in. Then, if you say “Yes,” then you have two more steps.

Justification - God takes time to prepare you and form you into the child of God He wants you to be.
Glorification - In the end, He will save you, bring you through death into life, and give you rewards for your faithfulness and obedience.

God Foreknows who you are.

" For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16

So wait. Does that mean there is no Free Will? No. Not at all. Just because God knows what we will choose to do, does not mean we do not have to still choose to do it. If I put a bowl of candy out next to a bowl of, say, Brussels Sprouts, even I, being imperfect and Human, can pretty much rest assured I know what my kids are going to choose. Now, can they choose the Brussels Sprouts? Yup. Will they?? Doubtful. So did I make them? No. I just had foreknowledge of what they would do.

God is the same way with us; He knows what we are going to do, what we are good at, and what we are not so much, so He lays out a purpose and a plan for our lives. Think about this also, He chose Judas. Remember, the Word declares this.

“This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.” Acts 2:23

God Chose Judas to betray Him. He chose Pontius Pilate. He chose every man who was there that day. He chose the Man who would drive the Nails through His Hands and Feet. Are you following?

If I need a tough guy to do something, I have my Boy Eli. If I need a sensitive guy to do something, I have Joshua. If I need a Princess, I have Maya. Now, when they grow a bit older, will I lay out my hopes and dreams for their Lives? Maybe. But they will grow up and be who they are. They will make their own choices.

Every life starts the same way. God foreknows and creates you exactly the way you are. He then sets up a purpose or plan for you and your life. The difference between God and me is that He is God. I may come close, but He has already seen. But we are still free to do it. Judas could have chosen not be a thief, not to betray Jesus, but he chose both. Jesus just knew He would. It’s like reading the last chapter of a story. No matter what happens from the beginning, you already know how it ends.

Peter

6

I ask you to listen to the podcast I posted @PeterC .

The first foundational text is the teaching of Jesus in John concerning the inability of fallen humanity to come to Him apart from divine drawing.

No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day[1]]

The verb “can” translates the Greek ΎύΜαταÎč (dunatai), which denotes ability or capability. The statement therefore does not merely say that people do not come, but that they cannot come, unless the Father first draws them. The drawing precedes the coming.

A closely related statement appears earlier in the same discourse.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out[2]]

Here the sequence is explicit. The Father gives people to the Son, and those given shall come. The coming is presented as the consequence of the Father’s prior giving.

Another passage often cited is the Johannine explanation of the new birth.

Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God[3]]

The phrase “not of the will of man” explicitly excludes human volition as the originating cause of the new birth. Regeneration is attributed to God alone.

Paul’s teaching in Romans also removes human willing as the decisive cause of salvation.

So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy[4]]

The parallelism contrasts human willing and striving with divine mercy, asserting that the latter is the determining factor.

Paul also describes the unregenerate condition as spiritual death.

And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins[5]]

Deadness here is the basis of the argument. **If a person is spiritually dead, then life must be granted by God before genuine faith can arise.Correct?

The same logic appears again in Colossians.

And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses[6]]

The verb “quickened” indicates that God is the one who imparts life, and this life is connected to union with the risen Christ after His atoning death on the cross.

In the pastoral instruction Paul writes:

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth[7]]

The Greek clause ÎŒÎźÏ€ÎżÏ„Î” ÎŽÏŽáżƒ Î±áœÏ„Îżáż–Ï‚ ᜁ ΘΔ᜞ς ÎŒÎ”Ï„ÎŹÎœÎżÎčαΜ literally reads “lest perhaps God may give them repentance.” The verb ÎŽÏŽáżƒ (dƍē) is an aorist subjunctive of didƍmi, meaning “to give, grant, bestow.” Repentance (metanoia) is therefore presented as something granted by God, not self-generated by fallen human will.

The surrounding context strengthens this interpretation. Paul describes those in error as being “taken captive by the devil” and needing to “recover themselves out of the snare.” The implication is that liberation and repentance occur when God grants the grace that leads to the acknowledgement of the truth.

This same theological structure appears elsewhere in the New Testament where repentance is described as a divine gift.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins[8]]

Here the exalted Christ, vindicated in His resurrection after the cross, is said to give repentance along with forgiveness.

The Jerusalem church also recognized this principle when the Gentiles believed.

When they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God saying Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life[9]]

The verb “granted” again presents repentance as something bestowed by God.

Taken together the scriptural logic is consistent. Humanity in sin does not originate repentance by autonomous will. God, through the saving work accomplished in the cross of Christ and applied through the life of the risen Christ, grants repentance, opens the understanding of the truth, and brings the sinner to faith.

Taken together these passages form the typical biblical argument used in the video I referenced.

Human beings are dead in sin.
They cannot come to Christ by their own ability.
They are born again not by the will of man but by God.
Salvation therefore depends not on human willing but on God’s mercy.

What I appreciate about Ryan is that he is grounded in the Scriptures and that his conduct reflects the fruit of the Spirit.

But thank you for your input Peter.

J.

  1. No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day - KJV ↩

  2. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out - KJV ↩

  3. Which were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God - KJV ↩

  4. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy - KJV ↩

  5. And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins - KJV ↩

  6. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses - KJV ↩

  7. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil who are taken captive by him at his will - KJV ↩

  8. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins - KJV ↩

  9. When they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God saying Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life - KJV ↩

1 Like
7

Friends:

This is a true story. There was a man, a member of the sect of the Pharisees, (that is to say he was a Jew who believed in the existence of spiritual beings, resurrection, and an afterlife) and his name was Nicodemus. He was also a ruler of the Jews (a member of the seventy).

This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him:
“Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Jesus answered and said to him:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born from above (Gk: anƍthen, ano=above, then = from) he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus (rhetorically) asked Jesus,
“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he (choose to) enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water (biologically) and the Spirit (spiritually) he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:1-8)

I suppose one thing Nick may have taken away from this conversation, one normally unsung doctrine, is by using the metaphor of “being born”, Jesus is suggesting the role Nick would play in his own birth. To the degree that Nick “decided” to be extricated from his mother’s womb, Nick would also have the same degree of autonomous contribution to being born from above; spiritually birthed from The Kingdom of Heaven.

When Nick was born a human infant, he had no input into the decision, he was not asked his opinion, he did not cast a vote, and he had no veto power. This is without controversy. We know that without the creative biology of God uniting the combined contribution of both parents, baby Nick would never have been; his human potential would be nothing more than dead-dust.

Those who cling to their own rational choice as the cause of their salvation never argue the same rational choice was made in their biological birth. They accept they were biologically made by the choice of others. But, they cannot let go of their own apparent inclusion into God’s salvation, His gracious provision to be born from above, to have come from anywhere other than their own clever autonomy. I can imagine my biological father’s reaction if in a conversation with him I were to emphatically insist that the only reason I was ever born, that April morning in Sparrow Hospital, was because he and my mother offered me the opportunity to life and I was smart enough to accept their offer.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. These things I command you, that you love one another. (John 15:16-17)

KP

1 Like
8

Brother @KPuff

In the passage you quoted from John 3:1–8, the reference to being “born of water” is not most naturally understood as strictly literal, biological water. Jesus is using the metaphor of birth to describe spiritual regeneration, and the parallel structure contrasts flesh and Spirit rather than distinguishing physical from spiritual events in a straightforward biological sense.

As here


of water, &c. = of water and spirit. No Art. Figure of speech Hendiadys ). Not two things, but one, by which the latter Noun becomes a superlative and emphatic Adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former Noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: i.e. not water but spirit. It is to be rendered “of water-yea, spiritual water”. Compare Eph_5:26, and See Joh_7:38, Joh_7:39 and Eze_36:25-27 for the “earthly things” of Joh_3:12.

And here


Jesus’ somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born “from above,” because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isaiah 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word Ï€ÎœÎ”ÏÎŒÎ±Ï„ÎżÏ‚ is anarthrous (has no article) in v. 5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.
NET.

And here


Of water and the Spirit (ex hudatos kai pneumatos). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add ex hudatos here? In Jhn_3:3 we have “anōthen” (from above) which is repeated in Jhn_3:7, while in Jhn_3:8 we have only ek tou pneumatos (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by ex hudatos (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (Jhn_3:3, Jhn_3:5, Jhn_3:7)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in Jhn_3:6 as meaning the birth of the flesh coming in a sac of water in contrast to the birth of the Spirit. One wonders after all what was the precise purpose of Jesus with Nicodemus, the Pharisaic ceremonialist, who had failed to grasp the idea of spiritual birth which is a commonplace to us. By using water (the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of “water” here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words hudatos kai (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but “are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation.” Here Jesus uses eiselthein (enter) instead of idein (see) of Jhn_3:3, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).
Robertson.

The phrase “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” shows the contrast: birth “of the flesh” refers to the natural, fallen human condition, while birth “of the Spirit” refers to God’s regenerating work. In that context, “water” is typically understood in Johannine thought as symbolizing the cleansing and renewing work of God, often connected with repentance and baptism, not simply literal amniotic fluid or biological birth.

Supporting this, Jesus immediately contrasts the visible and invisible: “The wind blows where it wishes
 so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” The emphasis is on the Spirit’s sovereign and mysterious action, not on a mechanical, physical process.

So the natural reading of John 3 is that “born of water and the Spirit” points to spiritual regeneration, where “water” likely symbolizes the cleansing effect associated with God’s work in baptism or repentance, and “Spirit” emphasizes the life-giving, sovereign work of God in bringing a sinner from death to life, rather than insisting on literal biological birth.

Shalom.

J.

9


born of water and spirit Jesus elaborates on the meaning of being born from above in v. 3, emphasizing the need for spiritual birth (see note on v. 3). The ot overtones of the Greek phrase used here, literally rendered as “born of water and spirit,” are meant to make Nicodemus realize that Jesus is inaugurating the age of renewal anticipated by the ot prophets (Joel 2:28; Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 11:19–20; 36:25–27). In this regard, Ezek 36:25–27 clearly combines the imagery of cleansing by water with inner renewal by the spirit (pneuma) from God.

Interpretations of this verse often attempt to connect Jesus’ statement with some type of water baptism, understanding references to both physical and spiritual rebirth symbolized by baptism. The phrase “born of water and spirit” could refer to two births, since John 3:6 contrasts being born of the flesh with being born of the Spirit. However, a reference to the Christian sacrament of baptism is unlikely. The mention of water, though, may allude to John’s baptism, which emphasizes repentance from sin. The danger with understanding “born of water” as a reference to water baptism is that it could be misconstrued as making baptism a requirement for salvation. Any secondary implications about water baptism should be understood as symbolic of spiritual rebirth, not as a necessary part of salvation.

But I don’t want this thread to be about “water baptism”

Johann.

1 Like
10

@Johann

Yes, thanx. I am aware of the various nuanced interpretations of Jesus’s words to Nicodemus. I appreciate your explication, but the point I was making was not really about that aspect of the passage. Rather, my point was how easily folks accept that they did not participate in their biological birth, but have difficulty accepting their nonparticipation in their spiritual birth. Jesus used the metaphor of “birth” to help Nicodemus understand his need to be “born from above” if he were ever to see (Gk: eido, perceive) the Kingdom of God. I was pointing out an aspect of Jesus’s choice to use “birth” as a metaphor because both births actually occur as someone else’s choice, and not the choice of the one being born. I was hoping you (or someone) might comment on that.

Thanks again for your input.

KP

1 Like
11

You are correct here @Kpuff. I would really appreciate it if you could exegete the passage using the grammar, syntax, and morphology, not so much for my sake, but for the benefit of the other members.

I am quite exhausted at the moment and would be grateful if you could take this one for me.

Blessings brother.

Johann.

If you can’t do it, let me know @KPuff .

12

Election

Christian teaching on election has drawn from a number of related biblical themes pertaining to God’s choice in salvation. Fundamentally, then, election is about selection (the English word “election” comes from the Greek verb to choose). Election is key for understanding the Bible’s grand narrative—the account of God’s plan to redeem and restore, through Christ, a holy people who had been lost in Adam. Unfortunately, election has also been at the center of considerable disagreement in biblical interpretation and theology.

Election to Salvation is Corporate and Individual

The Bible describes election as both corporate and individual. Following the account of God’s good and glorious creation, the Bible presents the story of human rebellion and alienation from their Creator (Gen 3). By Genesis 12, we see God’s strategy for redemption taking shape: God chooses Abram (Abraham) and promises that through him all the nations will be blessed (Gen 12:2–3). In doing so, God essentially embraces all of Abraham’s offspring (Gen 13:16); Abraham will be the father of the Israelites and, eventually, of all who trust in God as Abraham did. Numerous Old Testament references reiterate God’s gracious choice of Israel to be His people, such as: “You only have I chosen of all the clans of the earth” (Amos 3:2). Another example comes from Deuteronomy: “It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you 
 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers” (Deut 7:7–8).

Yet God’s election of Israel as His chosen people did not equate to the personal salvation of every Israelite. That required a heart commitment to God (Isa 29:13). Why might some ethnic Jews forfeit the salvation obtained by Abraham? In Paul’s words, “Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if by works. They stumbled over the stone that causes people to stumble” (Rom 9:32).

The New Testament’s teaching on election stands in continuity with the Old Testament, but with a crucial shift—one that was anticipated by the Old Testament prophets: God’s chosen are no longer identified by ethnic or national markers, but spiritually by faith. See how Paul defines a “spiritual Jew”: “For the Jew is not one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward, in the flesh. But the Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, whose praise is not from people but from God” (Rom 2:28–29). Both Jews and Gentiles—non-Jews—who believe in Jesus are the true children of Abraham (John 8:38–40, 56–59; Rom 4:16–17).

Peter, for example, speaks of the election of the Church in terms equally applicable to Old Testament Israel. He says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s possession, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light, who once were not a people, but now are the people of God, the ones who were not shown mercy, but now are shown mercy” (1 Pet 2:9–10; compare 1 Pet 1:1; 5:13).

[continue]

13

Differing Interpretations of Individual Election

Historically, nearly all Christian interpreters have agreed that God’s electing choice flows entirely from His grace, that human beings are moral agents responsible for our actions, and that personal participation in the community of the elect is by faith. But interpreters fall into two major approaches to the question of how God’s electing purpose comes to expression in the salvation of individuals: what might be called election unto faith versus election in view of faith. Are people believers because they are elect, or are they elect because they believe?

Many interpreters (like Augustine and Calvin) have understood the biblical data on election to mean that God has chosen to save an unknown number of specific individuals from the deserved consequences of all humanity’s sin—a choice based solely on God’s undeserved mercy. Because people are dead in sin if left to themselves, they cannot and will not embrace God’s gift of salvation apart from God’s own enabling power (Rom 3:9–19; John 10:26–29). God supplies His elect with a gracious and undeserved capacity to believe; election is unto faith, since faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:4–9).

Many other interpreters (like Arminius and Wesley) have understood the biblical data differently, taking it to mean that God does not elect unto faith, but desires to give all people equally the ability to receive His offer of salvation (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9) Everyone who believes is (therefore) included among the chosen.

More recently, some interpreters (like N. T. Wright) have sought to refocus this traditional emphasis on the basis of the election of individuals toward the purpose of the election of the community: The people of God are called to be holy and to participate in His mission of reconciling the world to Himself (Eph 1:4; 2:10; 2 Cor 5:17–20).

Whichever approach is taken, the biblical theme of election should lead all believers to praise God, like Paul does, for graciously choosing—even before the foundation of the world—to love us and save us in Christ (Eph 1:4–5; 2:14–22).

William W. Klein

J.

15

Theological Views on the Doctrine of Election

The Reformed view sees election as unconditional. Classically associated with Augustine and John Calvin, this view affirms that God chooses individuals for salvation. Differing opinions exist concerning when this choice occurs (e.g., before or after the Fall) and whether this choice includes the direct or indirect condemnation of the non-elect. The emphasis of this view is generally on the depravity of humankind, which is unable to contribute anything to its salvation.

Others view election as conditional. This position (often called Arminian) emphasizes people’s free will and their need for repentance and faith in order to receive God’s gift. Under this view, God has predetermined the conditions for salvation, but He does not select the individuals who will meet these conditions. In other words, God has foreordained the necessary characteristics of His people but has not chosen the constituent members of that people.

A mediating position between the Reformed and Arminian views seeks to retain a belief in God’s choosing and humankind’s free choice. It suggests that God chose those whom He knew would “meet the requirements” of repentance from sins and faith in Jesus. God’s foreknowledge and election are thus integrated with the free choice of humanity.

Other views describe the doctrine of election solely in corporate terms. The emphasis here is on God’s creation of a people rather than on His calling of individuals. Where individual calling is in view, it is generally seen as a calling to a task rather than a calling to salvation. This view holds that God’s election of a people is unconditional in a corporate sense and unlimited in an individual sense. His choice of a people, and what that people will be and do, has been made—but He has not predetermined who will be a part of that people.

Bibliography

Abasciano, Brian J. “Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:2 (2006): 351–71.

Basinger, David, and Randall Basinger, eds. Predestination & Free Will: Four Views on Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Beilby, James K., and Paul R. Eddy. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Brand, Chad Owen. Perspectives on Election: Five Views. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006.

Carson, D. A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

Cott, Jeremy. “The Biblical Problem of Election.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1994): 199–228.

Elliot, Mark Adam. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Grindheim, Sigurd. The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel. TĂŒbigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Jewett, Paul K. Election and Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Klein, William W. The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2001.

Marshall, I. Howard. “Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.” Pages 259–76 in The Thessalonian Correspondence. edited by R. F. Collins. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990.

Olson, Gordon C. Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Calvinism and Arminianism. Cedar Knolls: Global Gospel Publishers, 2001.

O’Neil, Michael. “Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Election.” Evangelical Quarterly 76:4 (2004): 311–26.

Schreiner, Thomas R. “Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:2 (2006): 373–86.

———. “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (1993): 25–40.

Thornhill, A. Chadwick. The Chosen People: Election, Paul, and Second Temple Judaism. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2015.

16

You are welcome. I think I just answered you on another topic.

Peter

17

Whowa. I did not address this. Simple question. God wants us to worship Him. He wants us to choose Him over the world. Over stuff, to have no other God before Him. Is this not the whole point to freewill?

Of course.

Yes, the Bible presents repentance as a gift that God provides, but it is a gift that a person must still “unwrap” and act upon. The word “peradventure” in the KJV or “perhaps” in modern versions suggests that the opportunity to repent is not something we can manufacture on our own whenever we feel like it. If God doesn’t “grant” the opportunity, by softening the heart, providing the truth, and convicting the conscience, then a person remains “dead in their sins” Ephesians 2:1. Dead people can’t choose to be alive on their own; God must initiate the “spark.”

While God gives repentance, He does not repent for us. Think of it like a medical prescription. The doctor (God) provides the life-saving medicine (Repentance). The patient (Man) cannot create the medicine, but they must choose to swallow it.

If God “made” us repent like robots, the many commands in the Bible for us to “Repent and turn to God,” such as Acts 3:19, would be meaningless. You don’t command a puppet; you command a person with a will.

Peter

18

God did not elect us individually before the foundation of the world as we did not exist before creation. What God did is establish categories such as those who would trust in Jesus such that those who would choose to trust in Jesus would enter that category and thus could be called “elect”.

19

And here @PeterC and let me know if you would disagree.

First it is necessary to observe that Scripture consistently describes salvation as originating in God’s initiative rather than in human volition.

~Jonah 2:9

Salvation is of the LORD[1]

This statement occurs in a context where Jonah recognizes that deliverance is entirely God’s act. The phrase is categorical and identifies the ultimate source of salvation.

The New Testament develops the same principle in explicit causal language.

~James 1:18

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures[2]

Notice the phrase “of his own will.”
The new birth is attributed to God’s will rather than to human decision.
The Greek construction identifies the divine will as the initiating cause of regeneration.

Likewise the apostle emphasizes divine calling as the decisive factor.

~2 Timothy 1:9

Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began[3]

Here salvation is explicitly grounded in God’s purpose established before the world began. Human decision is therefore not the originating cause.

The same pattern appears in apostolic preaching.

~Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed[4]

The grammar is significant. The text does not say they were ordained because they believed. The order is the reverse. Those appointed to eternal life believed.

Another passage frequently overlooked in discussions of free will appears in the pastoral epistles.

~2 Timothy 2:25

If God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth[5]

Repentance itself is described as something God gives. If repentance must be granted, then it cannot originate solely from autonomous human willing.

Even faith is described as something given.

~Philippians 1:29

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake[6]

The verb “given” indicates divine bestowal. Believing is presented as a gift granted by God.

Now this does not mean that human beings do not make real choices. Scripture clearly commands people to choose obedience.

~Joshua 24:15

Choose you this day whom ye will serve[7]

However a command to choose does not prove that the human will is morally able to choose God apart from divine grace. Scripture often commands what fallen humanity cannot accomplish without God’s intervention.

For example the prophets describe the human heart as incapable of producing the required obedience.

~Jeremiah 13:23

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil[8]

This rhetorical question highlights the moral inability of fallen humanity.

Because of this inability God promises that salvation requires a new heart given by divine action.

~Ezekiel 36:26–27

A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you an heart of flesh and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes[9]

The repeated “I will” statements emphasize divine causation. God himself produces the transformation that results in obedience.

Therefore the biblical structure is consistent.

God commands repentance and faith.
Humans are responsible to respond.
Yet the ability to repent and believe ultimately arises from God’s gracious action.

This pattern preserves both realities found throughout Scripture.

Human beings genuinely choose and believe.
But the decisive cause of salvation lies not in autonomous free will but in the sovereign grace of God revealed through the saving work of Christ in the cross and the resurrection.

Let me know if you agree, or disagree brother.

~Proverbs 2:3–5

~Acts 17:11

For this reason Scripture challenges us to dig deeply, to examine carefully, and to grow steadily in the knowledge and wisdom that comes from God’s revealed Word.

J.

  1. Salvation is of the LORD KJV ↩

  2. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures KJV ↩

  3. Who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began KJV ↩

  4. And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed KJV ↩

  5. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth KJV ↩

  6. For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake KJV ↩

  7. Choose you this day whom ye will serve whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood or the gods of the Amorites in whose land ye dwell but as for me and my house we will serve the LORD KJV ↩

  8. Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil KJV ↩

  9. A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you an heart of flesh And I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them KJV ↩

20

As I said in the other Topic response to you, We agree. Now I’m glad for your explination and the break down of the thought process that you showed. We are on the same page. Thank you for your time and effort.

Shalom my brother.

Peter

21

Still awaiting a response.

J.